## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI
agents for work
> - Agent runs depend on adapters translating Paperclip configuration
into each agent runtime's native configuration
> - The OpenCode local adapter passes configured models through the
`--model provider/model` argument
> - OpenCode only resolves that argument when the model id exists in the
provider's runtime `models` map
> - Valid provider-served model ids missing from OpenCode's bundled
catalog therefore fail locally with `Model not found`
> - This pull request registers the configured model in the injected
runtime configuration without overwriting explicit provider definitions
> - The benefit is that uncataloged routing variants and newly released
models resolve while cataloged models retain their metadata
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Pre-submission checklist
- [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a
duplicate.
- [x] I can reproduce this on current `master`.
- [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip's OpenCode
adapter rather than the provider or local configuration.
### What happened?
OpenCode local runs failed with `Model not found` when a configured
`provider/model` id was valid at the provider but absent from OpenCode's
bundled model catalog. OpenRouter routing variants such as model ids
ending in `:nitro` are one example.
### Expected behavior
Any configured provider-served model id should resolve when Paperclip
starts OpenCode, including ids not yet present in the bundled catalog.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Configure the OpenCode local adapter with a valid provider/model id
that is absent from OpenCode's bundled catalog.
2. Start an agent run.
3. Observe that OpenCode rejects the `--model` value with `Model not
found` before the session starts.
### Paperclip version or commit
Current `master` before this change.
### Deployment mode
Local dev using the OpenCode local adapter and an existing provider API
key.
### Installation method
Built from source.
### Agent adapter(s) involved
OpenCode local.
### Database mode
Not database-related.
### Relevant logs or output
`Model not found`
### Additional context
Reproduced with OpenCode 1.15.5. No duplicate or related public GitHub
issues or pull requests were found.
### Privacy checklist
- [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for sensitive information and no
secrets or PII are included.
## What Changed
- Register the configured `provider/model` id as an empty custom model
entry in the injected `opencode.json` provider configuration.
- Preserve explicit model definitions from user configuration and
`PAPERCLIP_OPENCODE_PROVIDERS`.
- Skip registration for model strings that do not use the
`provider/model` form.
- Add focused coverage for uncataloged models, explicit definitions, and
invalid model strings.
## Verification
- `cd packages/adapters/opencode-local && pnpm exec vitest run
src/server/runtime-config.test.ts` — 14 tests passed.
- `cd packages/adapters/opencode-local && pnpm exec tsc --noEmit` —
passed.
- Manual reproduction with OpenCode 1.15.5: the uncataloged OpenRouter
routing variant fails without the injected model entry and resolves with
it.
## Risks
- Low risk: the empty entry deep-merges with catalog metadata for known
models, and existing explicit model definitions take precedence.
- The behavior is limited to syntactically valid `provider/model`
configuration values in the OpenCode local adapter.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, exact runtime model `gpt-5.6-sol` (context-window size
not exposed by the runtime), with reasoning, tool use, terminal
execution, and code-editing capabilities.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
ee3ed0117e